Talk:Barney Frank/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Frank was not the first openly gay Representative

Resolved

 – Content sussed out and reorganized per WP:Undue, good work. -- Banjeboi 12:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The first openly gay representative was Gerry Studds, yet someone has now yet again edited the Frank article to ascribe that status to Frank.

In a previous discussion (now at Talk:Barney Frank/Archive 2#Anon repeatedly adding duplicative information), an anon was keen to add Frank's sexual orientation to the introductory section, on the basis that being the first was notable. I responded that being the first was notable and that's why it belonged in the introductory section in the Gerry Studds article, but not here.

I still believe that. The problem is that the misidentification of Frank as the first is apparently quite common. People keep coming along and asserting it. Therefore, I now think that the best way to maintain a stable and informative article is to include Frank's sexual orientation in the introductory section, but to mention that Studds preceded him in coming out. It doesn't really warrant such prominent placement on its own, but the value of dispelling the popular misconception justifies moving it up. JamesMLane t c 05:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is explained in the note and the end of that sentence and had been previously been worked on. There is a difference between being outed (someone outs you) and coming out (you out yourself). Studds is the former, Frank is the later. We don't have to hit people over the head with Studds' info in the lede just to appease drive-by folks who fail to get further down in the article. Studds's info is given due weight - very little - on this article in relation to the subject of the article. -- Banjeboi 08:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I missed that because the distinction between "Notes" and "References" is an unusual one in Wikipedia, where content footnotes are seen from time to time in the "References" section. I think this is a dubious way of presenting the information. More important, though, is that the information itself is dubious. I note that "Note 1" cites no sources. IIRC, some people contend that Frank was effectively outed, i.e., he publicly confirmed his sexual orientation when (and only because) it was about to be revealed anyway. A further point that's dubious about the current text is that it asserts that Frank has been the most prominent gay politician ever since his coming out, which probably isn't true (I think Studds was still more prominent in the late 1980s).

Here's a possible alternative: Leave in the introductory section something like "Frank, who has been openly gay since 1987, became the most prominent openly gay politician in the United States." (This leaves open the question of when he became the most prominent, a date we can't fix exactly anyway.) Then, in the "Personal life" section, note that he came out at a time when one member of Congress (Studds) was already openly gay, having been outed in the scandal. It probably wouldn't be amiss to augment that section with information about how and why Frank decided to come out, if we can find a good source for it. If there's a notable POV to the effect that he was to some extent pushed (somewhere between being outed and a completely voluntary coming out), then we could include that, too, provided it can be sourced.

For now, though, the idea would be to move some of this level of detail out of the introductory section and out of the footnote to that section, but simply to address it in text in the appropriate section. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall we had sourced it but that may have been corrupted over time. A brief mention of Studds in the personal life section might work and we could use the opportunity to add Tammy Baldwin, not sure if there are any others. I would prefer to leave the footnote intact regardless of what we put further down. This one of those quibbly things that should be included but footnotes handle well. The lede needs to serve as a stand-alone, which it is coming closer to doing, without getting tabloidy. The note helps toward that end. Let's see what the sources say and work on improving the information in the Studds article as well. -- Banjeboi 09:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's precisely because I think the introductory section should stand alone that I think the note does not work. First, the whole subject isn't a hugely important aspect of Frank's bio, so it doesn't need such emphasis. All that's really important for his bio is that he's a prominent national-level gay politician. The rest can be in the body of the article. Second, if a topic is included in the introductory section, it should be in summary form, and having this level of detail as a footnote to that section is a bad idea. A reader who reads only that section won't know that the footnote covers comparative trivia until he or she has read it. Thus the reader who's looking for a thirty-second precis on Barney Frank will spend part of the time on an excursion into historical minutiae in lieu of more important information about Frank. If the subject is addressed in the "Personal life" section, I could live with the footnote, although I think text is better. For the introductory section, though, the footnote is especially out of place. JamesMLane t c 10:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

We may have to agree to disagree on some of this then. Frank's notability is tied to being one of the first and most prominent out politicians in addition to his legislative record. We should lean on what sources state as well. -- Banjeboi 10:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

These days, in light of the combination of the Democratic takeover of the House (giving Frank his chairship) and the financial crisis (making his committee much more important than before), I'd say he's primarily notable as one of the key players in the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars. His sexual orientation is less important, comparatively, than it was before the 2006 election.

I previously opposed putting his sexual orientation in the introductory section at all. I've expressed willingness to compromise on that point, but even if you think that the topic is of such importance, surely the distinction you drew between being outed and coming out is less important. If what you see as important is that he's "one of the first and most prominent out politicians", how about we say just that much up front: "Frank, who in 1987 became the second openly gay member of the House of Representatives, has become one of the most prominent openly gay politician in the United States." Then Studds would get, as you said, a brief mention in the "Personal life" section, which is where the distinction between coming out and being outed would be noted. How does that sound?

You mention Baldwin and the possibility of others -- the third openly gay current Representative is Jared Polis. Those two aren't relevant to Frank as a trailblazer the way Studds is, because Studds relates to Frank's status as the first. Perhaps we should mention Baldwin and Polis in the LGBT section. That there are only three openly gay members shows the context in which Frank is working on those issues in Congress. JamesMLane t c 11:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I see the logic in that, excellent suggestion. Let's take the current lede sentence and the note. Push those into the personal life section and go with your proposed sentence in the lede. Add Polis and Baldwin to the note as well. If we have reason to discuss them outside of that we certainly could. -- Banjeboi 13:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the "openly gay" passages as per the above. Baldwin and Polis are already mentioned in the article, in the context of LGBT issues, which I think makes more sense than including them in the section on Frank's personal life. JamesMLane t c 09:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Gerry Studds' scandle in personal life section

What does mentioning how a former gay guy came out had anything to do with Barney Frank's sexual orientation? If you felt that you must include that information, you can leave out the part where the guy was found out with a page. The fact that the page was added goes back to the homophobic belief that gays are child molestors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.204.75 (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I read this and thought it was weird. It's certainly not relevant to Frank. I've left Studds and the fact he was also from Massachusetts, but removed the reference to the scandle. Shax (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It actually is but I've restored the footnote that we used before. They are from the same state and each came out due to public pressure involving political scandals. Once the article is better developed this can be revisited. -- Banjeboi 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Effect of Frank's coming out on his electoral results

Resolved

 – Re-added. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In the recent flurry over how to deal with Studds, the following passage was deleted without explanation:

Frank's announcement had little impact on his electoral prospects.

(Temporary reflist for convenience:)

The information that Frank's revelation was largely shrugged off in Massachusetts seems worthwhile, but I'm not sure that "Personal life" is the right section for it. JamesMLane t c 04:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a worthwhile sentence to include to me. LotLE×talk 05:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake, everything I've read thus far certainly supports its inclusion. I'm re-adding. -- Banjeboi 09:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved

It is only implicit in the lead that Barney Frank is a Democrat. Shouldn't it be explicitly stated? Fences and windows (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Good point. Do you want to propose some wording? LadyofShalott ^Weave 01:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose we update the lede sentence to:

“ Barnett "Barney" Frank (born March 31, 1940 in Bayonne, New Jersey) is the United States House Representative for Massachusetts's 4th congressional district since 1981 and a member of the Democratic Party. ”

This removes American politician, which is unneeded; the second use of represent and adds the party affiliation. -- Banjeboi 10:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Do we have any disagreement? Unless someone objects, I'll make the change tomorrow. LadyofShalott ^Weave 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor detail but the wording of U.S. House Representative seems weird to me. Maybe take a look at other Representatives to see how there's are done. Mel Watt and Greg Walden for example. Seems to be fairly standard formatting. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there opposition to just saying he is a Democratic politician... The American bit seems redundant when it's said he serves in the U.S. House. Just saying. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In other words we would use the current lead and just replace American with Democratic. Is this going to be perceived as some kind of POV pushing? It would be: Barnett "Barney" Frank (born March 31, 1940 in Bayonne, New Jersey) is a Democratic politician in the United States House of Representatives representing Massachusetts's 4th congressional district since 1981. You could even for shorter and go Barnett "Barney" Frank (born March 31, 1940 in Bayonne, New Jersey) is a Democrat in the United States House of Representatives representing Massachusetts's 4th congressional district since 1981. Which is certainly nice and clean. Whatever y'all decide. Just some ideas. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's more clean and concise. I have only a tiny quibble: democratic instead of democrat. So perhaps: Barnett "Barney" Frank (born March 31, 1940 in Bayonne, New Jersey) is a Democratic Representative in the United States Congress representing Massachusetts's 4th district since 1981. This comes up when stating the name of the Party and its officeholders. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 03:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Teledildonx314 that Wikipedia shouldn't follow the right-wing practice of misnaming the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party". See Democrat Party (phrase) for elaboration. In the example given by ChildofMidnight, however, "Democrat" is properly used as a noun ("Frank is a Democrat"). It's only its misuse as an adjective that's objectionable. JamesMLane t c 04:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am most comfortable with proposed version I posted at the top of this section, I've changed U.S. to United States but am unclear if any other changes are actually needed still. American is not in the proposed version. -- Banjeboi 10:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That's cool, the proposed version is fine with me. American isn't needed because there's only one Massachusetts. Also, regarding other ways to improve the lead paragraphs: does anybody know the quickest way to summarize his voting record as a legislator? and does anybody know which reliable sources have summarized the voting public's reasons for continuously electing him to higher and higher posts? If a majority of the four or five million eligible voters perpetually approved of his official actions, i think there might be political science textbooks or perhaps New England media and gay media which could be used as references for explaining this. I'm not from Massachusetts and i have no higher education in queer studies nor economic policy, but hopefully editors with expertise can give us a hand. These might be areas where we could gather broad generalizations for the lede while helping our readers to note the ways Frank stands out as a legislator. Then we can give due weight to the other less prominent aspects of his biography, outside of his professional life, without belaboring the trivia in the lede. Just my thoughts. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 10:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have some leads on voting record bits but I'd rather wait until the drama moves on as it's not helping the article and this talkpage is already painful to deal with, IMHO. -- Banjeboi 17:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My other edits

Resolved

 – When the article is propewrly expanded the Civil liberties section will be incorporparated appropriately. -- Banjeboi 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Since my other edits seem to have gotten lost w/the firestorm over the opening I'll list them again:

1) Remove or give a new section to the humor paragraph that shows up inexplicably when discussing his work with LGBT. I can see how it has some relevance to the section, but it seems to be a defining characteristic, rather than one limited to simply the LGBT.

2) I also think the Free speech section isn't really relevant considering it's about one bill rather than a pattern of political choices and voting. Soxwon (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The humor paragraph can be moved to the political career section. The "Free speech" section should likely be renamed to "Civil liberties" and when a better overview of his career takes place will likely be either expanded or merged as appropriate. -- Banjeboi

NPOV violation

Stale

No credible policy analyst or economist thinks Gramm-Leach-Bliley has any role in the banking crisis (if anything, the bill prevented a far worse catastrophe), yet the article takes the opposite fringe point of view without even mentioning the mainstream position. THF (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Proponents of the view that the GLB had a role in contributing to the banking crisis include the highest-ranked economist on IDEAS, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz [1]. Certainly Gramm's other bill, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, had a bigger influence, but the view is not "fringe". And if you think there's a NPOV violation, fix it. II | (t - c) 23:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We can simplify this a bit to differing to Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act#Controversy and those editors who are writing that content. What this article states is Franks' referral to the bill and the following explanation:

The statute, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, has been criticized for having contributed to the proliferation of the complex and opaque financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis.

Has, in fact, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act been "criticized for having contributed to the proliferation of the complex and opaque financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis"? If so, this seems pretty NPOV. If there hasn't been any criticism or this is otherwise false could you explain how it should change so that we are representing that criticism accurately? -- Banjeboi 00:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Image

Resolved

 – Image added. -- Banjeboi 09:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I just uploaded File:Barney Frank in Congressional office.jpg. I'll let someone else decide where it belongs on the page. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 22:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Shoulda uploaded it on Commons since it's a gov't image and totally free. Durka durka. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather eat dog treats than upload to Commons. Durka burka Al Gayda. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 22:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems on Commons, my friend? Do tell! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Visit my padded cell. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection again

Resolved

 – Issues being addressed in new threads. -- Banjeboi 19:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking for semi-protection again as we have some vandals just popping up again. -- Banjeboi 02:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've full protected for one week because of both the content dispute and the vandalism. I suggest working out the former on this page. LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Who took the POV tag out? there is an edit war at least let the people know.... Nicholas.tan (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think adding a POV or dispute or whatever tag would be appropriate while the article is locked down. This version has serious issues that have been disputed for some time now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Article protection signals that there has been an edit war - a tag is unnecessary. I don't see a bona fide dispute here, either, just edit warring. Neither tags, nor edit wars, are a substitute for honoring a consensus process. Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's just an edit war, the article has some issues. Soxwon (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute / POV tags are also not right if the parties are in a good faith productive consensus process - it would be gaming for a party to slap a tag on in the middle of that, a sign that they won't accept not getting their way. There are very few cases where they're really appropriate. Wikidemon (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If we're discussing the POV tag that was added yesterday by an anonymous IP, I took it out. Considering the tendentious editing going on at this article, a drive-by POV tagging by an IP address was inappropriate. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 19:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

This is my first mediation, so be nice...

Okay, I have just spent the last 45 minutes reading most of the pertinent things on this page. I want to say a few things first.

I would suggest that someone find the most unbiased source of news. That would automatically exclude the Times and a hardened Democrat, as well as Rush and Hannity. I would immediately recommend Fox News' "Special Report," or Drudge Report, or even "ABC Evening News," based simply on this study, done by Professors Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo of UCLA and The University of Chicago, respectively. Now, that excludes the commentators (i.e. Hannity, Colmes, Van Susteren, etc.), just the actual news reports.

For those of you who are for removing it...as a conservative-leaning person, I feel your pain. However, this is a website that is for NPOV editing, and you guys have been POVing. A lot. For instance, would any of you actually disagree with the assertion that Congressman Frank is "one of the most powerful members of Congress" if it were made by Brit Hume instead of NYT? No matter what your view of his political leanings, you can't successfully argue that point.

For those of you who are for leaving it, your lack of willingness to compromise suggests POV as well. In my opinion, The New York Times is a decent source. I would argue POV problems on my own, but I am here to mediate, not preach. However, a former speechwriter for a former President does not qualify. Ask yourselves this: would you want a quote about Sarah Palin from a former speechwriter of the Bush Administration? Probably not. The real question is, why is this quote so important? I realize that you all might like and admire Congressman Frank, but, again, this is supposed to be strictly NPOV.

My recommendation: Leave part of the first line "The New York Times has called Frank 'one of the most powerful members of Congress'", but remove the NYT part, and find a few more sources that make the same claim. And maybe a short list of some MAJOR (meaning most impact, not "coolest", or "most controversial") accomplishments. But remove the Clinton speechwriter line.

Is everyone okay with that?

And lastly, a personal comment. Guys, you have to be a little more polite. Read the friggin guidelines. Be Polite, Assume Good Faith, Avoid Personal Attacks, and Be Welcoming! Joshua Ingram (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with mediator

I agree because...

Disagree with mediator

I disagree because...

Comments

I'm not sure the mediator is getting the core argument here. The argument is whether enough sources have been included already to justify inclusion (see above talk). Also, I'm conservative and I admit the UCLA study is butkus and widely dismissed. Drudge and Fox News are both on the right. Also, there are a couple of suggested compromise edits as well such as mine suggesting moving the second quote down to politics and saying it shows a transition from "partisan" to "compromiser." Soxwon (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you disagree with the compromise, or that you just like your own suggestions better? Joshua Ingram 03:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Could you clarify as to what you mean? Soxwon (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the proposed compromise, or do you think that your compromises better serve the overall NPOV of the article? Joshua Ingram 03:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to label you as uncooperative, I'm just asking a question. I promise. Joshua Ingram 03:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, hence the asking for clarification. I agree that multiple sources would be nice, but the question is whether the sources listed here: [2], [3], [4], and [5] address the topic well enough to justify the statements inclusion. I say they don't address the topics of the three statement enough. I also say that for the second line (compromiser) that the description I gave is indeed more accurate. I proposed it almost immediately after you arrived and it is just one in a series of comrpomises I have suggested starting with removing it, moving it to political, and changing it to be more NPOV and reflect the sources. Soxwon (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you guys are working it out, why request a mediator? I apparently didn't connect that section with the argument, and never saw it. That's why I didn't know about that part of the argument. So, I guess I will close the case, and erase my stuff. If you guys have anymore problems, you can reach me here. If you aren't satisfied with my "work", you can request another mediator here. Joshua Ingram 03:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... that's rather hasty. No, they are not really working it out. There have been attempts, but there has been a lot of head butting here. LadyofShalott 03:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I said no such thing Joshua, I was pointing to the true source of conflict. Soxwon (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's the deal. I was sent to mediate a dispute that no one already involved in the dispute could solve. However, since the request for mediation, there have been proposed compromises that have not been commented on. That's why I have closed the case, not because of anything that was said within the last hour. But you may be right. I will reopen the case, but I want to give everyone a chance to speak to the compromise proposed by Soxwon. Joshua Ingram 04:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Which one? They have variously insisted removing it, moving it, mitigating it, double-down sourcing it, various replacements and rewording thus degrading it and now that this - IMHO, yet another attempt to disrupt until they get their way attempt didn't work - adding more content to bolster Frank started out his career as less of a compromiser than he is now. Of all these the only one that comes close is adding more reliably sourced and neutral content somewhere in the career section that supports Frank was seen as less effective or less civil (or something) than he is now. None of this supports removing what we have in the lede of the very visible and active BLP politician. If the last suggestion had ever been suggested in their weeks of arguing up to now no one would have said a peep except to likely find the best source to capture it. Personally I'm not opposed to your help here but I find opening a mediation in the middle of an RfC a rather pointy action intended to further a discussion which has been repeated many times with this same user. Talkpage discussions should not be treated like a magic eightball in hopes that a consensus you've been arguing against for a month will somehow change if you simply keep shaking it. My confidence in them has eroded and their motives here are looking more and more unlikely to be against the best interests fo the project in general and certainly this article. The energy the community has invested in Soxwon and ChildofMidnight's tenditiousness here is staggering with the only net result that we have unearthed more sources supporting what we have awaiting for these two to move on so more dispassionate editing can ensue. At some point, the good faith blinders have to be removed and we see the sum totla of their efforts here which are woefully lacking. They have the mistaken impression that the length of a discussion will sway when that has never been true here, we stick to policies. -- Banjeboi 04:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Soxwon requested the mediation before the RfC was started. LadyofShalott 04:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, I've struck that comment. -- Banjeboi 16:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought Joshua, the mediator, made a lot of excellent suggestions. I'm not sure why his proposals are being removed. At the least it's worth considering his opinions and input. I hope they will be resotred as relevant and helpful in advancing the discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed them, since at that moment I thought that I had showed up at an inconvenient time. I will replace them. (And I appreciate the comment) Joshua Ingram 05:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Joshuaingram, I'm surprised that you "would immediately recommend" anything based on one primary source (and then admonish others to read Wikipedia policies) - no singular study can be taken as Truth, and unsurprisingly this one is disputed. To be frank, it suggests to me that you're not ready for the role of mediator. —EqualRights (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith, for now. However, if this discussion continues, I suggest you refer to the Bias Notice on my user page.

There are several things wrong with your statement. First, I personally recommended it. I did not say, "here is my proof, and it is irrefutable!" I did not use it as a source for anything. I was giving my PERSONAL reasons for trusting those media outlets more than others. But, if you want more, you can feel free to go here and here. Oh and you can take that Media Matters crap somewhere else. You can't dispute something as biased with a statement made by a company that is dripping with bias, by it's own admissions. Sorry.

As for being ready to be a mediator, well, I won't argue with that. However, it's hard to be an unbiased mediator when you have people challenging you with their own bias. Joshua Ingram 13:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm sure you will want proof of their bias. Well, all you really have to do is go to their home page and look. But, if you don't want to go, here is a bit of it, from their own "mission statement."

"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

Yeah, that makes me want to trust them wholeheartedly. How about a compromise: I don't bring News Busters into this, or any other self-declared conservative site-and no one else does, either- and no one brings any self-declared liberal sites. Joshua Ingram 13:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of the study, which we have all taken issue with, his basic point was to use neutral sources and wording in so far as possible. Fox News and the New York Times often represent two ends of the political spectrum. Even more important are the specifics of his actual recommendations for the article. I think they seem quite reasonable. So let's all agree that we don't have to abide by the results of that study on which sources are "fair and balanced" :) and move on to the substance of his recommendations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - r to JI)
As a matter of fact, that's how Wikipedia works. I don't have a dog in this fight (except for suggesting ages ago that the NYT statement belonged in the body rather than the lede), but I find some of your comments unconstructive and their tone is more abrasive than that of other moderators I've observed, so I've asked the Cabal Coordinators to comment. —EqualRights (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What is how Wikipedia works? I tell you my personal opinion for why I recommend a source of information that is the least biased (Not an official statement that provides facts, just a personal opinion), and you come and treat it as though I'm saying that the only place for completely unbiased information is what I read in a study? I'm sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. What you did was attack me personally. I gave an opinion, my personal opinion, not a statement of my personal beliefs, but a reason why I would recommend something, and you treated it as though I was offering proof for the claim that Fox News is completely unbiased. That's not how Wikipedia works. And I welcome the Cabal Coordinators. I hope they can do a better job than I have (and I'm sure that they can), and I hope you don't treat them like you have me. Joshua Ingram 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I still trust the NYT

In their book Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky analyze a variety of major U.S. media outlets, with an emphasis on the Times. They conclude that a bias exists which is neither liberal nor conservative in nature, but aligned towards the interests of corporate conglomerates, which own most of these media outlets and also provide the majority of their advertising revenue.

I hereby mark the one month anniversary of ChildofMidnight's efforts to remove this content from the lede, if not the article. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529#ChildofMidnight on Barney Frank BLP has the summary of editing plus a display of the divert and disrupt strategies that seem to be playing out here. In one month these two editors have managed to get the article fully protected three times. If the allegedly too positive statement was corrupted or moved? It wuld be replaced by one of many other statements that they would also find unsuitable for a host of reasons. Sorry but this really fails the WP:Duck test here. They see Frank, the NYT and likely countless others as only liberals who need to be muddied in some way so everyone can see how dirty they are. That's not NPOV. Neither is it NPOV to insert negative material "to balance" what we have. Neither is opinion peices, etc etc. Their judgement here has been quite alarming and this article deserves better. -- Banjeboi 16:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm ask you once again to plz REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL ATTACKS. You may have your opinions, I have mine. This isn't the place to air them. Soxwon (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• The comments of those reviewing your ANI report:

"If he is, as you say, the most prominent LGBT politician in the world would it not make sense to include his efforts on behalf of gay rights? ...would mediation or an RfC perhaps make headway on this situation? "

and

"CoM's reasoning above sounds, well, reasonable to me."

Amen! Joshua Ingram 20:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As recommended, the good faith editors trying to resolve the dispute have sought outside opinions and mediation. The mediator, like most reasonable editors, suggests there is a reasonable middleground for compromise. So why not cease making disruptive accusations and focus on the content. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice backhanded insult to cast yourself as a good faith editor. Seems to indicate the oppsite is true and your history of disruption and edit-warring seems to confirm this. As has been stated, a few times, deleting positive material because you haven't matched it up with negative material is not policy or acceptable nor is it a compromise. In fact you've not shown any signs of compromising until warned with a 3RR block. You then edit warred until the page was fully protected and then edit-warred after the page was unprotected against consensus. You've persisted in disrupting and have continued to fabricate false accusations against other editors including characterizing those who disagree with you as homophobes which is rubbish. Your edits were unreasonable and many editors helped revert them. Please don't pretend your interest is something than your track record shows. Joshuaingram, I'm glad you've seen that report but I'm confused by your comments above given that this issue has been resolved a long time ago. No one agrees that COM's proposal to replace civil rights with gay rights is appropriate. Please consider reading the voluminous talkpage histroy over the last month and that should be apparent. This also casts doubt on your ability to be an impartial mediator here at all combined with your assertion that the New York Times, one of the most respected sources available be dismissed out of hand and replaced by Fox News. I'm glad we have these statements on record but they are no less alarming. And Soxwon, please see WP:NPA, I doubt you'll find that I attacked you as much as pointed out and ongoing editing problem with both you and ChildofMidnight. The sourcing problems you have both demonstrated using opinion pieces is alrming; your willingness to compromise NPOV to insert negative material troubling and your persistance in disrupting this article, and from what I understand others as well - disappointing. I won't pretend that is not the main problem here. This stinks of an ongoing campaign and the article has has to be protected because of your efforts. Before you came along editors who disagreed simply worked issues out with respect and according to policies. With CoM, this article turned into a battleground. Thoughtful discussion disintegrated and progress stalled. I look forward to when both of you move on to other areas so the article can again improve. -- Banjeboi 20:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh plz Benji, I admit the article I mentioned was a strawman argument, but I brought it up ONCE and you have villified me for it ever since. How about you actually try and get off your high horse and come to a compromise. From what I've seen suggesting edits contrary to yours and a small group of editors opinion is considered disruptive especially as your "consensus" is shaky. Your constant accusations of POV agenda are indeed personal attacks (Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream), as are your commentary on my editing history (Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence). I have, I admit, not always been civil, but then that's understandable considering that your only responses have been quoting irrelevant articles, pointing to non-existant consensus, and saying I should "stop creating disruptions" when I'm just trying to get a straightforward answer. However, at this point it's obvious that this article is not getting changed and I am going to leave it. Soxwon (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• The New York Times is a strong, reliable, neutral source for the proposition that Frank is one of the most powerful members in congress. I see no reasonable basis for validating the occasional partisan claim that the New York Times is liberal propaganda - if you were to throw out the Times as a reliable source there are basically no reliable sources and everything just becomes politics. Other reliable sources have been provided. Fox is usually a reliable source but sometimes you have to watch for an overt political agenda or for opinion pieces disguised without the usual disclaimers as analysis or news coverage. So there's no question that it is unsourced. If there are other reliable sources standing for or controverting this claim, bring them on! Back to the claim about being powerful / influential. It is an appropriate thing to state if verifiable, and the lead is the logical place to make a summary statement like that because it is a summary of his entire career and official actions, not specially relevant to a single section. The two things missing - an open question - are: (1) are these statements controverted directly, or indirectly by being outlier comments, in which case we would have to look at WEIGHT, and in any event it would weaken the claim and make it less important; and (2) accepting it is true and uncontroverted, is it really important enough and encyclopedic enough to be part of the lead of the article. I think both of those are valid questions that can only be determined through consensus. Although I have no strong opinion my inclination is to say that the claim is not controverted by any sources brought to the table, and because we have multiple reliable sources, the sourcing looks solid. Also, as I suggested, it is the sort of material that, if sourced, belongs in the lead. I believe there was a consensus for having it there before, and that any attempt to remove or deprecate it should not be made (definitely not edit warred) until and unless a consensus is demonstrated otherwise. Wikidemon (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

consensus change

Without opining on where consensus may lie, I support this[6] modification (though I am concerned over the adjective "volatile" to describe the first year of the Bush administration, something that the change leaves untouched. Wikidemon (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be clear that wasn't any concensus change and places undue weight on a laundrylist of issues without a solid review of if these deserve this prominence. On the surface it looks fine but we've erred on civil rights to broadly cover all the issues and have avoided the rather pointy gay rights (code phrase for liberal anyone?) as being policitizing when unneeded. This is another incremental change that only serves to degrade what we have while inserting "gay rights" something we've steadfastly avoided doing this whole time. If CoM ever moves on there are a few editors still willing to clean up and research what issues make sense and how to expand the article appropriately without injecting more problems. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Lede should show due weight

"Well-publicized recent events affecting an article subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each." This BLP concerns a very accomplished politician, let's not pretend the POV-injected issues are weighted properly as much as presented by volume. As it is now this article would never meet GA standards as it fails to cover significant portions of his life and career. There is many more questions than answers. A luandry list in the lede thus violates NPOV and suggests an interest, as noted many times of somehow besmirching Frank as soley or disportionately concerning "gay rights" which is patently false. -- Banjeboi 16:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

After talking with Benji on his talk page, I think we may have reached some kind of agreement over my proposal. Including the sources I already provided, I have several that show an early reputation for partisanship: [7], [8] (Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was the feisty Democratic partisan, merrily lobbing verbal grenades into the GOP camp), [9], [10], [11], [12]

But that as he advances in his career, he shows a subtle and gradual change to the position of compromiser: [13], [14],[15], [16] (even the NYT article that is currently being used supports this to a degree). What I think most accurately describes him, is a partisan who has mellowed and stepped up compromise and efforts to reach deals as he has gained experience and worked his way up the ladder and that this has come to a climax during the recent economic struggles. I would not be opposed to this being in the lead or the political section. Soxwon (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, just to be clear, the compromise would be that content with Due weight should be added to the early career showing he was more "feisty" or something neutral - partisan is a POV word we try to avoid. We should show not tell our readers this and that is done not by plopping in instances of Frank behaving badly - I'm sure every politician has more than a few of those - but by summarizing his various terms over the years. Likely all those "issues" should be merged into chronological career highlights as appropriate. A quick look a politician articles of a higher quality show we talk abou their issues among their career development, not issue by issue likely because politicians careers may focus on certain issues but hardly one at a time. At the core of this proposal then is to show Frank's earliest career steps which would certainly be acceptable. -- Banjeboi 20:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If it appeared that I was trying to pick and choose issues than that is my mistake. I had hoped to show more of a trend, but a lot of the articles describe the temperment in question as something that Frank was known for throughout his career in the 90s and especially during the Clinton scandal. While I admit many of the sources mention Frank in passing, they do mention him when discussing partisan commentators. I could probably find more sources speaking of him directly, my point is that for the first half of his career or so, he was known for "feisty" if sometimes, "partisan" behavior that later evolved into a more compromising attitude. Soxwon (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree that he likely evolved over time. We also need to show the context - sometimes junior colleages are used in such a way for a broader agenda. His actions likewise may have been in context with the administration in power at the time including who was controlling the US Congress and was he working in conjunction with his party leaders etc. I think a case can be made he was certainly seen as a whip of sorts but its more helpful to lay the context of not only how he behaved but suss out his motivations for doing so. I may break down and get the documetary about him. -- Banjeboi 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

←The lead looks sanitized. I see no critical mention in the lead of his role in Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. That strikes me as a signifcant ommission, considering the amount of attention his involvement has received. Majoreditor (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture of a Hippopatamus

Sometimes when I go to the main page, the first picture (on the right) is a picture of a hippopotamus. If I log into my wikipedia account first (polyphemus), I get Frank's picture. If I'm in the discussion window, open a new tab, and type "Barney Frank" into the wikipedia home page, I get Frank's picture. But if I'm logged out, I have one tab open, and I go to the page, I get a hippopotamus.

I'm afraid my understanding of wikipedia is insufficient to fix this bug myself. Can someone else please help?

Thank you,

67.81.139.53 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC) William Cross: login name polyphemus

Update: I can't seem to replicate this picture of a hippo. I'm sorry.

-William Cross: login name polyphemus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.139.53 (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has been plagued by vandals adding photos lately. -- Banjeboi 02:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Partner status

Resolved

 – Paramter found and added. -- Banjeboi 08:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

How come his partner status isn't listed in his profile? You know, like if he were straight. From the masses to the masses, let's embody that in terms of equality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.53.121 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 26 June 2009

Do you mean the infobox? I'm not sure if spouses/partners are listed. -- Banjeboi 08:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

I disagree with the last sentence of the first ¶ to the effect that Congressman Frank's House Financial Services Committee oversees the "housing and banking industries." I believe it would be more accurate to refer to the "mortgage and banking industries," since that committee deals with federal laws regarding both bank and non-bank mortgages, as well as stock and bond brokerage and a host of other Wall Street functions (not to exclude CBT and non-NYC mutual funds—big wave to Ned Johnson here). Dick Kimball (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I clarified to "oversees the entire financial services industry, including the securities, insurance, banking, and housing industries." from our article on the committee. -- Banjeboi 08:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

POV issue

This sentence

"Once control was turned over to Democrats, Frank was able to push through the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915), both in 2007.^[51]"

is not WP:NPOV.

• Control "being turned over" should be changed to something that better indicates that elections were won in order to shift the balance of power in the house to Democrats.
• "Push through" is like saying "shove down the throat". It's not WP:NPOV, and has negative connotations of force.
• The sentence seems to indicate that frank is single-handedly responsible for the two acts. Obviously this is not the case.

I am adding the POV banner to the article, and will remove once we can agree on some better language for this info. MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

POV banner should not be employed, you have valid concerns with one sentence, let's just fix it. His role may be exactly as we present it but until sources confirm that perhaps this will be more NPOV? -- Banjeboi 11:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

“ Once control shifted to the Democrats, Frank was able to help guide both the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915) to passage in 2007. ”

We have a site called Wikinews

What the heck is wrong with editors who introduce every flash-in-the-pan story with a three day shelf-life?! The nonsense about a "viral video" of Frank making some colorful comments on a anti-healthcare-reform agitator was something I found amusing enough when some friends put it on their Facebook pages, but it hasn't the remotest relevance to this Wikipedia article. I haven't looked through the edit history to see who added it, but whoever it was: Grow up! We are writing an encyclopedia here. This isn't a personal blog to post the latest amusing clips, and this "story" has about as much relevance as some picture from LOLcats. LotLE×talk 19:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's totally irrelevant. But at least it's not factually innacurate like this nonsense from the opening paragraphs " "a key deal-maker, an unlikely bridge between his party’s left-wing base and [...] free-market conservatives".[" Utter bullshit that makes Wikipedia look silly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't go there. This was discussed to death and was incredibly disruptive with the result? We removed Newsweek. My hunch is that once the biography comes out we'll have plenty to work with to overhaul the lede and everything else. -- Banjeboi 00:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We discussed it and one side suggested it's totally inaccurate, but was willing to allow it in with appropriate context (that it refers to a particular event) in the body of the article. Those pushing for it and to censor other more notable content about Frank and his positions made war to keep the misleading nonsense in. Until admins and others are willing to rein in the abusive behavior we will be stuck with innacurate and misleading information like this in our articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll stick with reliable sourcing, TYVM. -- Banjeboi 01:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well, let me know when you find a reliable source that says Frank is a bridge builder with free market conservatives. That's so moronic even the New York Times source that's cited didn't claim it. They said, doing their usual spin, that on that particular issue he was one. Leave it to Wikipedia to take a throw away line like that and stick it in an introductory paragraph out of context to change its meaning so it completely misleads readers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your view. -- Banjeboi 02:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I'm inclined to agree with CoM on the "unlikely bridge builder" clause of the lead. The "defender of civil rights" seems solid and relevant. But the "bridge builder" part feels fluffy to me, and not necessary for readers to understand Frank's political positions/history. LotLE×talk 09:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an important piece of his success - that he gets things done. Perhaps a rewording to still express that? -- Banjeboi 17:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi wrote in an edit comment that restored the lead clause about "unlikely bridge builder": rv, this was a subject of an RfC that did not side with you; consensus was to keep it; please don't start the whole cycle over again because you apparently don't like the subject).

There was indeed prior discussion of that clause, and I did indeed support it at some point. But that was in the context of a somewhat different lead, and honestly I have reevaluated the relevance and tone of the clause. While the guideline is perhaps over-cited, consensus really can change, as in this case. For the record, while it seems clear that CoM really does dislike Frank, I myself am very positively impressed by Frank, and he is perhaps my favorite member of Congress. I was a bit sad when I lived in Massachusetts not to have lived in Frank's district, actually, but still felt pride for the state that elected him. Nonetheless, this encyclopedia should remain neutral, and the "one of most powerful members" clause really does already capture the same concept more neutrally. LotLE×talk 23:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I know we brought this up Benji, but I believe this was the one I disagreed with the most, simply b/c it's a bit singular and seems unnecessary. The others can stay, fine, but I really think that this part is a bit too singular in its scope and too out of context to be put in the lede. Soxwon (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be fixed not removed, frankly I think a quote attributed is better than twelve more rounds of quibbling over a handful of words. This is an integral point to his success and is indeed a surprising point given the level of invective thrown his way. -- Banjeboi 09:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to this dispute, so please excuse me if you've already covered this... but doesn't the NYT source's stipulation of "free market conservatives in the administration" make a big difference? The impression left by the article right now is that Frank is a bridge between free-market conservatives in general, instead of free market conservatives within the Bush administration circa 2008. johnpseudo 13:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what I said previously, the scope is limited and I think this tidbit should go into the body of the article. Soxwon (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Instead of edit-warring against obvious consensus, perhaps editors can find a description that isn't taken quite so obviously out of context, or quite so contentious, for the lead. I really don't think we need anything more, since "one of most powerful" does the work we want. But I wouldn't be against some additional clause in principle, if it were better supported. LotLE×talk 19:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you and you seem to be edit-warring against consensus from just a few months ago. There is no consensus to remove but perhaps look how to present this information aligned with NPOV policies. The fact that Frank works to build-bridges seems apparent from a reputable source - the article "A Liberal Wit Builds Bridges to the G.O.P." seems pretty clear on this and nothing but right-wing and often religious social conservatives seem to dispute this. I've wedged in some qualifiers and a quote to help address these stated concerns. -- Banjeboi 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Craig WP:SOAPBOX

While I agree entirely that Larry Craig is hypocritical, a bad guy, attacked Frank because of internalized homophobia, and all the rest, those would all make perfectly good topics for the article Larry Craig. Trying to turn this article into a rant about this topic is radically off-topic, and is a silly soapbox to shoehorn in an external political agenda. The fact is that the house voted overwhelmingly for censure, and it is good that Benjiboi added that fact. But Frank's own career, personal life, etc. were not particular driven by whether Craig or someone else was the point-man for attacks. This just isn't a biographically significant matter for this article... the inclusion of the older sentence has long bothered me, and the addition of even more non-relevant digression bothers me than much more. LotLE×talk 00:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: If someone finds a source where Frank himself specifically claims motives for Craig, accuses Craig of hypocricy, etc., I would be more inclined to allow that material. But some 3rd party documentary that is about Craig, but not about Frank just isn't going to cut it for relevance to this article. LotLE×talk 00:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is "ranting" or soapboxing, at all. The Outrage documentary centers on Craig and Crist and with Frank as one of the main interviewees and it's all about ... the issues of closetedness effects in US politics. Frank directly talks about this, he is interviewed in the film. I suppose we could wedge in a quote or two but that would seem to take up more room and maybe become undue. -- Banjeboi 01:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The recent attribution of comments about Craig to Frank gets us a bit closer to relevance. It still feels quite tenuous though. Saying bad things about Craig is hardly a "significant life event" for Frank (or notable to his public perception, etc). If we could somehow reformulate this to focus on Frank, it would be a lot better. For example, if Frank himself has consistently spoken about closeted, self-hating, gays (which he has), Frank's comments on Craig could be examples of that notable position. But as it is, it still reads more like a random digression into Craig's article in the middle of Frank's article (ChildofMidnight's changes do make it better though; as rarely as I wind up agree with CoM on most editing matters). LotLE×talk 09:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm loathe to reward bad behaviour as a rule. Speaking just to content issues, however, we have similar content in the LGBT section which maybe could be moved and reworked a bit to show this as one of the prominent examples. -- Banjeboi 17:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not a very prominent example of his work or positions on gay rights. It's only relevance is to make a point about hypocrisy. It's an interesting point, but it reads like an editorial, and I don't think it's suitable for an encyclopedia article about Frank. But I don't really care that much about it. It's just frivolous. I'm sure some of Frank's defenders are hypocrites too. So what? I'm more concerned with trying to be accurate about Frank's positions and work, which is why the "bridge builder" thing irks me. He's well known for his partisan attacks on Republicans and is an outspoken liberal, so why are we describing him as bridge builder? It's misleading and ridiculous. There's also an entire section on his advocacy for legalizing marijuana (for example, also military spending, online gambling etc.), yet Frank partisans were adamant that it be censored from the opening paragraphs as some kind of outrageous attempt to bias the article against Frank. Well, what issues has Frank worked on most then? What is he most notable for? I don't see why it's outrageous to note he supports legalizing marijuana if that's something notable he's worked on. It's certainly more accurate and helpful than claiming he is a bridge builder to conservatives, which is utter nonsense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it speaks exactly to his work about being ethical and transparent. Hypocrisy is not just about being openly gay, it extends into how people whose job it is to make laws and run a country often enacting life-and-death decisions should behave morally and honestly. Be honest about who you are and respect others for being who they are. It could be worked in better but I think all the issues should be worked in better. He's perhaps well-known by some to do "partisan attacks" but so is every politician depending on who you ask and how powerful they are. Frank is one of the most powerful democrats in the US, we can find all manner of nonsense going in every direction - a lot of it quite heated and baseless. On BLP I tend to look at what an obituary would write and a bridge-builder is exactly what I would expect to see. While someone's alive maybe not so much are you going to see their opponents being objective but once he's no longer seen as a part of the opposition I would expect Fox News to dial down the rhetoric. -- Banjeboi 08:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)